MovieChat Forums > The Revenant (2016) Discussion > I'm confused by the hate for this film.

I'm confused by the hate for this film.

posted 8 years ago by charleskwaters
132 replies | jump to latest

I thought it was beautiful and I've seen it 4 times. It keeps getting better. I've read that many complain that it's so bleak, but that's the point. And there are moments that aren't bleak, where desperate men are out only for themselves such as scene with the helpful Indian, the scene where the boy gives food to the Indian woman in the shattered village, etc.

I love this film.

There seems to be no middle ground on this one. You either love it, or hate it. Strange. Why is that I wonder?

Edit: Weeks after posting this question, I've come to the conclusion that IMDB forums are full of a few thoughtful people and a bunch of goofballs. There are a lot of really nasty and childish comments here. For those who actually thought about their answers - thank you. But I won't waste any more time here. I'll discuss movies with friends over a few beers.

[–] chrishayes737 8 years ago

What hate ? it rates 8.1 on here & won Oscars - you have to click on hated it in the review section but every movie ever made has hate for it by a minority....

[–] aupple 8 years ago

It didn't need to be 2 1/2 hours long. It was too long and drawn out. I get they wanted to show the landscape and the cinematography was great, but the movie could have easily been cut 30-40 minutes shorter without losing anything.

Every film has middle ground. I surely didn't love it but I didn't hate it either... I simply wasn't as impressed as most critics were. I expected too much i suppose, so I was disappointed.

[–] frankzappayay 8 years ago

I thought it was quite boring. I loved how accurate it was of the time (even if the story wasn't) and visually it was amazing, and great acting, etc. But I just thought it was boring. There was too much crawling around eating moss and chasing and nothing actually happening. It should have been a 90 minute film not 2 and half hours. And even at 90 minutes it needed more. It started with such an over the top battle and then there was not much to see after that. It reminded me of that film where the plane crashes and they are pinned by wolves. Good atmosphere but no substance and a lot of repetition

[–] dehnerian 8 years ago

I thought the movie was great, although I did laugh hysterically when an airline flight flew in on the set during a scene and apparently Alejandro G. Inarritu or anyone didn't edit it out.

[–] Falconeer 8 years ago

I think the problem is, it is simply difficult to take. Slow, dark, and relentlessly bleak; it's easy to imagine certain people hating it. If you appreciate snowy landscapes and wilderness scenes, then you will be in heaven watching this. Again, not everybody likes that. Personally, although I can't imagine watching it multiple times, I can easily admit that it is a staggering film, and brilliantly made. I've never been a fan of DiCaprio, and that might sway me a bit from the film as well, however much I love Tom Hardy. (That man can do no wrong). Anybody that says something like a movie is "crap" or it "sucks," better be able to support their comment with reasons. I would never just make a comment like that about any movie, or any piece of art, without backing up my statement. "The Revenant" is a solid, unforgettable film; but it is one that many will not enjoy, for obvious reasons.

Fabio Testi is GOD

[–] gljbradley 8 years ago

Well put.

[–] CookieNCreams 8 years ago

I agree. I personally thought this was a good film with beautiful cinematography and atmosphere. This kind of movie won't be everyone's cup of tea.

♥♣♦♠

[–] GregClapton 8 years ago

It is a 100% ripoff of Man in the Wilderness! Richard Harris, John Huston 1971

[–] ChaoticAtmosphere 8 years ago

There's many reasons why this film is disliked. (Hate is a strong word and misused by way too many people these days.)

Here are my reasons:

The scenes you claim to be beautiful, too few and too far apart. Filled with pages of script filled with grunts and heavy breathing and I felt I constantly had to make up my own reasons as to how Hugh survived each mishap he suffered. It was not made evident how he could have possibly beat constant hypothermia, especially after the scene where he went down countless rapids and off a waterfall without drowning; then the scene where he fell off a cliff that killed the horse he stole but yet he survived as well many other scenes where he should have succumbed to shock.

In between all those scenes was long drawn out nothingness where I felt okay to to things other than keep watching.

There was little character development if any and furthermore, the whole movie was predictable. No twists at all. I had no "WOW, I didn't expect that!" moments at any point in the movie.

Personally, the TV series "Alone" gets a better rating than this movie does from me.

[–] jhpen22 8 years ago

Agreed. I'll add that the directing is distracting. Lenses in closeups are often wide-angle. That's okay, but then shots often pan, causing distortion at the sides of the frame, drawing attention to the camera. Glass's breath fogs the lens, drawing attention to the camera. Finally, Glass looks directly into the lens in the last shot, breaking the "4th wall" and obviously drawing attention to the camera. It seems pretty clear that this director intended to draw attention to himself, consciously. It's not only distracting; it's unprofessional and not artistic since none of it adds to the narrative, mood, characterization, scenic beauty, or any other aspect of the film.

I've written this to draw attention to an element of the film that, as a photographer, I noticed. I agree entirely that the mood is almost unrelentingly dark and violent; I find neither quality entertaining. Captain Henry, Glass's wife, and his son are the only characters who evince a steady moral compass. Glass, himself, in his love for his family, his saving of the Indian woman being raped, and in his final decision regarding Fitzgerald shows humanity. Saving the woman saves his life, and Glass learns the lessons his wife taught him. These are the only saving moral graces in this movie. There have been works of art that explore evil and the loss of civilized behavior when people are removed from civilization, notably William Golding's Lord of the Flies. I can't think of any more heavy handed than this one.

[–] jackg11228 8 years ago

I would have enjoyed it with any other actor.